The "math" of RPGs

[payn]

There was a time I wanted a little tactical wargame in my RPG, but now i'm more into just playing a tactical wargame while putting some RPG in it instead. When I play RPGs im more about the exploration and social aspects anyways.

Though, as a PF1 fan, I do think having a crunchy system is fun. The trick is getting to know that system well (its been around for 20+ years now) and knowing your players. Its that wildcard factor that makes balance so difficult for RPGs. Some like the flexibility of horseshoes and hand grenades because they can custom fit it to their style, others prefer a more in a lance straighforward system where it plays the same for every group. The blessing of the age we live with is there is a version for everyone at this point.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm different than many here in that I don't (usually) simply decide what is in the world (easy or hard encounter-wise) and let the balance figure itself out, but instead I try to make for an interesting encounter - with new tactical decisions, different enemies, and an interesting location. As different as possible than the last encounter. So, yeah - sometimes it means that this one will be hard (in particular if the last one was easy) or vice-versa. Or if the difficulty remains (approximately) the same, then at least the situation is very different.

I also try to use narrative stakes as much as possible, so that even something that is mechanically trivial feels like a life-or-death struggle, or something that is, balance-wise, a close call, feels like a glorious victory. I often (but importantly not always) strive for the only "balance" being that my favorite encounter-result is this: Just when the players start to think that they might actually lose this fight, they then soon win.

It's why I've never understood those that think that combat is "boring" or that it's somehow different from "role-play" or that it should be considered a "lose condition". I generally run combats that are exciting, and I think my players tend to agree.

(They can sometimes grind a bit when I run them here by PBP, but I think that's because they can take a whole month to run, and I haven't found a good way to adjust for that or to keep them moving more quickly, but that's another story).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In 40-odd years I have found there is one way, and one way only, to do this reliably -- get a feel for the game and your group and learn how to eyeball it. It helps if you run a game where having a fight that is "too easy" or "too hard" is actually an acceptable outcome. My players are unlikely to complain that fight is too easy, and they understand that if it turns out to be too hard it's on them to withdraw. This frees me to build encounters that simply make sense in the context of the world, and spend a lot less time worrying if they're too hard or too easy.

Admittedly, I haven't had much to do with more recent games where the game itself claims to have some hyper-accurate encounter balancing method.

Yeah, I've yet to find a game with a balancing mechanic or recommendations that is accurate. You just have to develop a feel for the game and the PCs over time. I generally err on the side of caution, especially when trying a brand new game, then eventually start throwing tougher encounters in the mix.

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

I know it gets a bad rep, but I do think that 4E did this pretty well. 4E encounter design was pretty good.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

As you mentioned, the difference can be razor thin. I think that's while we see much more of underpowered encounter than overpowered ones. The consequences are much more fleeting.

These challenges of balancing generally stems from two variables: the action economy of the game, and the general boundaries of the game's math.

The action economy is self-explanatory. Throwing more dices more often is generally an advantage. Depending on your rulesets, in increases the chance to have critical, and you just get much more consistent damage output. If you had a thousand kobold attacking at the same time, you could pretty much statistically guarantee a certain number of hits. The problem is that we operate at much smaller scales where it's much more swingy.
Some games alleviate these problems. I'm not sure which one it is, but I'm pretty sure several games from the Into the Odd family aggregate multiple enemies attack and only the highest roll is counted. So it drastically increases the odds of higher damage, but you still have a cap.
Pathfinder 2E moving criticals at 10 over the DC instead of a specific value of the die alleviates part of it.
Other systems have an economy that functions entirely differently and don't have as much issues.

The math is kind of obvious too. It's been a while, but 3.5E ever-escalating maths meant that at certain levels, lower-rated enemies couldn't hit you, unless it was a critical hit. But the obvious was true, a single stronger opponent could have such a high AC that your players barely had chance to hit it, and the creature could have almost assured chances of hitting it. 5E's bounded accuracy fixed part of these problems. A thousand kobolds would mathematically kill you, very fast. But it does mean that it's difficult for a single entity to face a group within being at a big disadvantage.

Finally, for me, what has been the biggest issue are some of the more drastic effects of spells. Fighters and orcs bashing each other is generally not the issue. But one caster putting your solo monster to sleep, or stunning it or something of the sort is generally a death sentence. The contrary is true, some spells cast by monsters are absolutely devastating when they disable players from action.

 

[GMMichael]

Finally, for me, what has been the biggest issue are some of the more drastic effects of spells. Fighters and orcs bashing each other is generally not the issue. But one caster putting your solo monster to sleep, or stunning it or something of the sort is generally a death sentence. The contrary is true, some spells cast by monsters are absolutely devastating when they disable players from action.

Dangerous spells are fair game at high level. I don't have any expectation that mid level or even high level combats should be between too easy and too hard. It's combat: if you've made it to mid level, you knew the stakes going in. A boss fight is different, although I think players love to tell the story off the boss that they trounced. Otherwise, it's nice for a boss fight to be long lasting and interesting.

At low level, however, players and characters are learning the ropes. They don't want to realize that death was on the line after the whole party is dead. That's one reason that I offer some resistance perks to characters: Sleepless and Fearless. If a PC simply wants to take the effects of, say, sleep spells off the table (or the chances of failing guard duty), take the Sleepless perk early on. It's also a good way to prove that your character has elf heritage.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, I don't know, are there any RPGs that somehow manage to do this better? Is there a better way to design encounters to hit this sweet spot?

DM Cheat

 

[FrogReaver]

Some analysis as to why this happens so much. It's because the d20 dice and relatively low rounds of combat. Cold or Hot dice can turn relatively easy encounters into tough ones. Say all the PC's miss and all the Enemies hit on the first turn.

I've seen too many times the players have an easy encounter due to lucky rolls and then the DM makes the encounters harder only to have poor rolls a few encounters down the road and TPK.

If you want challenging but winnable battles you need to mitigate as much randomness as you can.

 

[Retros_x]

I also found that not balancing encounters makes the world feel more realistic, worlds where everything is level appropriate feel super fake, like it's a videogame or something, which I definitely don't like.

Interestingly enough I enjoy videogames much more that don't do scaled leveling too. I was really annoyed by the scaling in Bethesda games for example.

 

[aramis erak]

I find the 5e balancing worked well if one thinks of the breakpoints as floors, nor ceilings, for the level of challeng, in the levels I've run most... 1st through 8th. I feel the whole game is broken by level 10.
In the 1st to 8th, it's worked for me.

I find the looser system in Daggerheart works great, too.